Search Results

Search found 38931 results on 1558 pages for 'database testing'.

Page 148/1558 | < Previous Page | 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155  | Next Page >

  • Oracle Event: Database Enterprise User Security

    - by user12603048
    One of the high-value benefits of an integrated Identity and Access Management platform is the ability to leverage a unified corporate directory as the primary authentication source for database access. On July 11, 2012 at 08:00 am PDT, Oracle will host a webcast showing how Enterprise User Security (EUS) can be used to externalize and centrally manage database users in a directory server. The webcast will briefly introduce EUS, followed by a detailed discussion about the various directory options that are supported, including integration with Microsoft Active Directory. We'll conclude how to avoid common pitfalls deploying EUS with directory services. Discussion topics will include Understanding EUS basics Understanding EUS and directory integration options Avoiding common EUS deployment mistakes Make sure to register and mark this date on your calendar! - Click here to register.

    Read the article

  • Easy to use database with views for a medical student doing research?

    - by Sarah
    I'm having trouble finding a tool that does this for my friend (without designing it myself). What is needed is a simple program with a database where input forms and views can be designed and saved. A patient table might consist of, say, 50 columns, so it is imperative that it is possible to make columns be able to default, say, through a form for submission of data. By views I mean something like "saved selections" based on various criteria (WHERE runny_nose=True...) but as friendly as possible to save, and export options would be nice. Does this exist at all? It seems at one hand trivial and on the other, my Google fu is failing.

    Read the article

  • mysql database cannot connect with cpanel [closed]

    - by Rafee
    And this question was asked on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8182119/mysql-database-cannot-connect-with-cpanel <?php $con1 = mysql_connect("mywebsiteip","mysql_username","mysql_user_password"); if(!$con1) { die ("Could not connect " . mysql_error()); } else { echo "Good connection"; } mysql_close($con1); ?> When i run it, it cannot connect to mysql database over cpanel. and i even tried up $con1 = mysql_connect("mywebsiteip:portnumber","mysql_username","mysql_user_password"); Can any let me know, which one is good way.

    Read the article

  • Gone in 60 Seconds: An Insecure Database is an Easy Target

    - by Troy Kitch
    According to the recent Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, 98% of breached data originates from database servers and nearly half are compromised in less than a minute! Almost all victims are not even aware of a breach until a third party notifies them and nearly all breaches could have been avoided through the use of basic controls. Join us for this November 28th webcast to learn more about the evolving threats to databases that have resulted in over 1 billion stolen records. Also, hear how organizations can mitigate risks by adopting a defense-in-depth strategy that focuses on basic controls to secure data at the source - the database. There's no turning back the clock on stolen data, but you can put in place controls to ensure your organization won't be the next headline. Note, this webcast will be recorded for on-demand access after November 28th. 

    Read the article

  • MySQL tables corrupted and need to be repaired,how to fix them and how to prevent this [on hold]

    - by Hbirjand
    We have developed a software that uses,MySQL database,and after some month of usage,some of the database tables had been corrupted and need to be repaired,what is the cause of this corruption? How can we fix them? How can we prevent the database tables from corruption. Because of the corruption,we are not able to create a backup using Navicat,and we can not generate a dump too. Is that possible to fix this tables using MySQL engine,and some of this corruption is about empty fields in database tables.

    Read the article

  • Speed up MySQL for inserts (for testing purposes)

    - by Alex N
    I have a bit of software that needs to do a lot of INSERTs. In production environment there'll be some serious tweaking and testing and stuff like that, but now when I need to test it I'd like to speed up inserts as much as possible. Hence my question - is there a way to tweak mysql such that it doesn't do much disk I/O but keeps everything in RAM and syncs with disk rarely(like once n-seconds say?)

    Read the article

  • How to force a drop of MSSQL Server database

    - by ng01
    I am trying to delete an MSSQL Server database, however I am having no luck. I have tried multiple things such as user ALTER DATABASE my_database SET RESTRICTED_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE; GO DROP DATABASE my_database; GO I have also tried to right click on it a delete it. This does not work, it tells me "Cannot drop database "ima_debts" because it is currently in use". The thing is there is definately no other user connected to it. In fact I disabled TCP/IP for the database and restarted it. Not even "Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio (Administrator)" is connected to it. I have made sure to login to "master". Why is it telling me it is currently in use. Is it possible for me to delete perhaps a directory or something from the file system to get rid of this database? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Android SQLite database gets corrupted

    - by Seu
    There are about 100 people using my Android App right now and every once and while I get a crash report to the server with this stack trace: android.database.sqlite.SQLiteDatabaseCorruptException: database disk image is malformed at android.app.ActivityThread.performLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2596) at android.app.ActivityThread.handleLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2621) at android.app.ActivityThread.access$2200(ActivityThread.java:126) at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1932) at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99) at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:123) at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:4595) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:521) at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:860) at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:618) at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method) Caused by: android.database.sqlite.SQLiteDatabaseCorruptException: database disk image is malformed at android.database.sqlite.SQLiteQuery.native_fill_window(Native Method) at android.database.sqlite.SQLiteQuery.fillWindow(SQLiteQuery.java:75) at android.database.sqlite.SQLiteCursor.fillWindow(SQLiteCursor.java:295) at android.database.sqlite.SQLiteCursor.getCount(SQLiteCursor.java:276) at android.database.AbstractCursor.moveToPosition(AbstractCursor.java:171) at android.database.AbstractCursor.moveToFirst(AbstractCursor.java:248) The result is the app crashing and all the data in the DB being lost. One thing to note is that every time I read or write to the database I get a new SQLiteDatabase and close it as soon as I'm done. I thought this would simplify things, but perhaps that's causing the problem? Is it possible this is just a SQLite bug?

    Read the article

  • Partitioned Repository for WebCenter Content using Oracle Database 11g

    - by Adao Junior
    One of the biggest challenges for content management solutions is related to the storage management due the high volumes of the unstoppable growing of information. Even if you have storage appliances and a lot of terabytes, thinks like backup, compression, deduplication, storage relocation, encryption, availability could be a nightmare. One standard option that you have with the Oracle WebCenter Content is to store data to the database. And the Oracle Database allows you leverage features like compression, deduplication, encryption and seamless backup. But with a huge volume, the challenge is passed to the DBA to keep the WebCenter Content Database up and running. One solution is the use of DB partitions for your content repository, but what are the implications of this? Can I fit this with my business requirements? Well, yes. It’s up to you how you will manage that, you just need a good plan. During you “storage brainstorm plan” take in your mind what you need, such as storage petabytes of documents? You need everything on-line? There’s a way to logically separate the “good content” from the “legacy content”? The first thing that comes to my mind is to use the creation date of the document, but you need to remember that this document could receive a lot of revisions and maybe you can consider the revision creation date. Your plan can have also complex rules like per Document Type or per a custom metadata like department or an hybrid per date, per DocType and an specific virtual folder. Extrapolation the use, you can have your repository distributed in different servers, different disks, different disk types (Such as ssds, sas, sata, tape,…), separated accordingly your business requirements, separating the “hot” content from the legacy and easily matching your compliance requirements. If you think to use by revision, the simple way is to consider the dId, that is the sequential unique id for every content created using the WebCenter Content or the dLastModified that is the date field of the FileStorage table that contains the date of inclusion of the content to the DB Table using SecureFiles. Using the scenario of partitioned repository using an hierarchical separation by date, we will transform the FileStorage table in an partitioned table using  “Partition by Range” of the dLastModified column (You can use the dId or a join with other tables for other metadata such as dDocType, Security, etc…). The test scenario bellow covers: Previous existent data on the JDBC Storage to be migrated to the new partitioned JDBC Storage Partition by Date Automatically generation of new partitions based on a pre-defined interval (Available only with Oracle Database 11g+) Deduplication and Compression for legacy data Oracle WebCenter Content 11g PS5 (Could present some customizations that do not affect the test scenario) For the test case you need some data stored using JDBC Storage to be the “legacy” data. If you do not have done before, just create an Storage rule pointed to the JDBC Storage: Enable the metadata StorageRule in the UI and upload some documents using this rule. For this test case you can run using the schema owner or an dba user. We will use the schema owner TESTS_OCS. I can’t forgot to tell that this is just a test and you should do a proper backup of your environment. When you use the schema owner, you need some privileges, using the dba user grant the privileges needed: REM Grant privileges required for online redefinition. GRANT EXECUTE ON DBMS_REDEFINITION TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT ALTER ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT DROP ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT LOCK ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT CREATE ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT SELECT ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; REM Privileges required to perform cloning of dependent objects. GRANT CREATE ANY TRIGGER TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT CREATE ANY INDEX TO TESTS_OCS; In our test scenario we will separate the content as Legacy, Day1, Day2, Day3 and Future. This last one will partitioned automatically using 3 tablespaces in a round robin mode. In a real scenario the partition rule could be per month, per year or any rule that you choose. Table spaces for the test scenario: CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_legacy.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day1.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day2.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day3.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_A 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_a.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_B 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_b.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_C 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_c.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; Before start, gather optimizer statistics on the actual FileStorage table: EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(USER, 'FileStorage', cascade => TRUE); Now check if is possible execute the redefinition process: EXEC DBMS_REDEFINITION.CAN_REDEF_TABLE('TESTS_OCS', 'FileStorage',DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_USE_PK); If no errors messages, you are good to go. Create a Partitioned Interim FileStorage table. You need to create a new table with the partition information to act as an interim table: CREATE TABLE FILESTORAGE_Part ( DID NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE, DRENDITIONID VARCHAR2(30 CHAR) NOT NULL ENABLE, DLASTMODIFIED TIMESTAMP (6), DFILESIZE NUMBER(*,0), DISDELETED VARCHAR2(1 CHAR), BFILEDATA BLOB ) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( ENABLE STORAGE IN ROW NOCACHE LOGGING KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) PARTITION BY RANGE (DLASTMODIFIED) INTERVAL (NUMTODSINTERVAL(1,'DAY')) STORE IN (TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_A, TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_B, TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_C) ( PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY RETENTION NONE DEDUPLICATE COMPRESS HIGH ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES COMPRESS ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) ); After the creation you should see your partitions defined. Note that only the fixed range partitions have been created, none of the interval partition have been created. Start the redefinition process: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.START_REDEF_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS' ,orig_table => 'FileStorage' ,int_table => 'FileStorage_PART' ,col_mapping => NULL ,options_flag => DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_USE_PK ); END; This operation can take some time to complete, depending how many contents that you have and on the size of the table. Using the DBA user you can check the progress with this command: SELECT * FROM v$sesstat WHERE sid = 1; Copy dependent objects: DECLARE redefinition_errors PLS_INTEGER := 0; BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.COPY_TABLE_DEPENDENTS( uname => 'TESTS_OCS' ,orig_table => 'FileStorage' ,int_table => 'FileStorage_PART' ,copy_indexes => DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_ORIG_PARAMS ,copy_triggers => TRUE ,copy_constraints => TRUE ,copy_privileges => TRUE ,ignore_errors => TRUE ,num_errors => redefinition_errors ,copy_statistics => FALSE ,copy_mvlog => FALSE ); IF (redefinition_errors > 0) THEN DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('>>> FileStorage to FileStorage_PART temp copy Errors: ' || TO_CHAR(redefinition_errors)); END IF; END; With the DBA user, verify that there's no errors: SELECT object_name, base_table_name, ddl_txt FROM DBA_REDEFINITION_ERRORS; *Note that will show 2 lines related to the constrains, this is expected. Synchronize the interim table FileStorage_PART: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.SYNC_INTERIM_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS', orig_table => 'FileStorage', int_table => 'FileStorage_PART'); END; Gather statistics on the new table: EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(USER, 'FileStorage_PART', cascade => TRUE); Complete the redefinition: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.FINISH_REDEF_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS', orig_table => 'FileStorage', int_table => 'FileStorage_PART'); END; During the execution the FileStorage table is locked in exclusive mode until finish the operation. After the last command the FileStorage table is partitioned. If you have contents out of the range partition, you should see the new partitions created automatically, not generating an error if you “forgot” to create all the future ranges. You will see something like: You now can drop the FileStorage_PART table: border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; text-align: left; border-left-color: silver; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 4px; line-height: 12pt; background-color: #f4f4f4; margin-top: 20px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 4px; width: 97.5%; padding-right: 4px; font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace; direction: ltr; max-height: 200px; font-size: 8pt; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: auto; border-top-color: silver; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; cursor: text; border-right-color: silver; border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; padding-top: 4px; " id="codeSnippetWrapper"> DROP TABLE FileStorage_PART PURGE; To check the FileStorage table is valid and is partitioned, use the command: SELECT num_rows,partitioned FROM user_tables WHERE table_name = 'FILESTORAGE'; You can list the contents of the FileStorage table in a specific partition, per example: SELECT * FROM FileStorage PARTITION (FILESTORAGE_PART_LEGACY) Some useful commands that you can use to check the partitions, note that you need to run using a DBA user: SELECT * FROM DBA_TAB_PARTITIONS WHERE table_name = 'FILESTORAGE';   SELECT * FROM DBA_TABLESPACES WHERE tablespace_name like 'TESTS_OCS%'; After the redefinition process complete you have a new FileStorage table storing all content that has the Storage rule pointed to the JDBC Storage and partitioned using the rule set during the creation of the temporary interim FileStorage_PART table. At this point you can test the WebCenter Content downloading the documents (Original and Renditions). Note that the content could be already in the cache area, take a look in the weblayout directory to see if a file with the same id is there, then click on the web rendition of your test file and see if have created the file and you can open, this means that is all working. The redefinition process can be repeated many times, this allow you test what the better layout, over and over again. Now some interesting maintenance actions related to the partitions: Make an tablespace read only. No issues viewing, the WebCenter Content do not alter the revisions When try to delete an content that is part of an read only tablespace, an error will occurs and the document will not be deleted The only way to prevent errors today is creating an custom component that checks the partitions and if you have an document in an “Read Only” repository, execute the deletion process of the metadata and mark the document to be deleted on the next db maintenance, like a new redefinition. Take an tablespace off-line for archiving purposes or any other reason. When you try open an document that is included in this tablespace will receive an error that was unable to retrieve the content, but the others online tablespaces are not affected. Same behavior when deleting documents. Again, an custom component is the solution. If you have an document “out of range”, the component can show an message that the repository for that document is offline. This can be extended to a option to the user to request to put online again. Moving some legacy content to an offline repository (table) using the Exchange option to move the content from one partition to a empty nonpartitioned table like FileStorage_LEGACY. Note that this option will remove the registers from the FileStorage and will not be able to open the stored content. You always need to keep in mind the indexes and constrains. An redefinition separating the original content (vault) from the renditions and separate by date ate the same time. This could be an option for DAM environments that want to have an special place for the renditions and put the original files in a storage with less performance. The process will be the same, you just need to change the script of the interim table to use composite partitioning. Will be something like: CREATE TABLE FILESTORAGE_RenditionPart ( DID NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE, DRENDITIONID VARCHAR2(30 CHAR) NOT NULL ENABLE, DLASTMODIFIED TIMESTAMP (6), DFILESIZE NUMBER(*,0), DISDELETED VARCHAR2(1 CHAR), BFILEDATA BLOB ) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( ENABLE STORAGE IN ROW NOCACHE LOGGING KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) PARTITION BY LIST (DRENDITIONID) SUBPARTITION BY RANGE (DLASTMODIFIED) ( PARTITION Vault VALUES ('primaryFile') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) ,PARTITION WebLayout VALUES ('webViewableFile') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) ,PARTITION Special VALUES ('Special') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) )ENABLE ROW MOVEMENT; The next post related to partitioned repository will come with an sample component to handle the possible exceptions when you need to take off line an tablespace/partition or move to another place. Also, we can include some integration to the Retention Management and Records Management. Another subject related to partitioning is the ability to create an FileStore Provider pointed to a different database, raising the level of the distributed storage vs. performance. Let us know if this is important to you or you have an use case not listed, leave a comment. Cross-posted on the blog.ContentrA.com

    Read the article

  • Using NSpec at various architectural layers

    - by nono
    Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

    Read the article

  • What are best practices on virtual lab/test bed architecture?

    - by WooYek
    I am currently preparing a new small virtual environment for development and testing with Windows Server + SQL Server + AD + Sharepoint + Exchange + IIS(ASP.NET) + Biztalk + ?, for a small (up to 5) dev team. What are pros and cons on different approaches, eg. splitting up over different machines or packing everything up per machine. I your experience what are the best practices I should follow in terms of architecture and various system/servers placement. What to share and what to split per person. I would like to achieve some flexibility for the dev and testing process (so teammebers would not be steeping on each other's toes) and limit administrative effort needed to propagate settings, integrate work items and revert changes when something breaks up. It's not supposed to be an everyday development working environment, more a tier 2 developer testing environment, and not yet an integration or QA testing environment with formal change process. IMO the two borderline solutions are: creating one all-inclusive machine for each dev team member giving them freedom to manage creating shared environment managed by the one with somehow formalized change request process What golden mean would you recommend, and why?

    Read the article

  • WPF: OnRender and Hit Testing

    - by stefan.at.wpf
    Hello, when using OnRender to draw something on the screen, is there any way to perform Hit Testing on the drawn graphics? Sample Code protected override void OnRender(System.Windows.Media.DrawingContext drawingContext) { base.OnRender(drawingContext); drawingContext.DrawRectangle(Brushes.Black, null, new Rect(50, 50, 100, 100)); } Obviously one has no reference to the drawn Rectangle which would be necessary to perform hit testing or am I wrong about this? I know I can use DrawingVisual, I'm just curious if my understanding is correct, that using OnRender to draw something you can't perform any hit testing on the drawn things?

    Read the article

  • Your thoughts on Best Practices for Scientific Computing?

    - by John Smith
    A recent paper by Wilson et al (2014) pointed out 24 Best Practices for scientific programming. It's worth to have a look. I would like to hear opinions about these points from experienced programmers in scientific data analysis. Do you think these advices are helpful and practical? Or are they good only in an ideal world? Wilson G, Aruliah DA, Brown CT, Chue Hong NP, Davis M, Guy RT, Haddock SHD, Huff KD, Mitchell IM, Plumbley MD, Waugh B, White EP, Wilson P (2014) Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biol 12:e1001745. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001745 Box 1. Summary of Best Practices Write programs for people, not computers. (a) A program should not require its readers to hold more than a handful of facts in memory at once. (b) Make names consistent, distinctive, and meaningful. (c) Make code style and formatting consistent. Let the computer do the work. (a) Make the computer repeat tasks. (b) Save recent commands in a file for re-use. (c) Use a build tool to automate workflows. Make incremental changes. (a) Work in small steps with frequent feedback and course correction. (b) Use a version control system. (c) Put everything that has been created manually in version control. Don’t repeat yourself (or others). (a) Every piece of data must have a single authoritative representation in the system. (b) Modularize code rather than copying and pasting. (c) Re-use code instead of rewriting it. Plan for mistakes. (a) Add assertions to programs to check their operation. (b) Use an off-the-shelf unit testing library. (c) Turn bugs into test cases. (d) Use a symbolic debugger. Optimize software only after it works correctly. (a) Use a profiler to identify bottlenecks. (b) Write code in the highest-level language possible. Document design and purpose, not mechanics. (a) Document interfaces and reasons, not implementations. (b) Refactor code in preference to explaining how it works. (c) Embed the documentation for a piece of software in that software. Collaborate. (a) Use pre-merge code reviews. (b) Use pair programming when bringing someone new up to speed and when tackling particularly tricky problems. (c) Use an issue tracking tool. I'm relatively new to serious programming for scientific data analysis. When I tried to write code for pilot analyses of some of my data last year, I encountered tremendous amount of bugs both in my code and data. Bugs and errors had been around me all the time, but this time it was somewhat overwhelming. I managed to crunch the numbers at last, but I thought I couldn't put up with this mess any longer. Some actions must be taken. Without a sophisticated guide like the article above, I started to adopt "defensive style" of programming since then. A book titled "The Art of Readable Code" helped me a lot. I deployed meticulous input validations or assertions for every function, renamed a lot of variables and functions for better readability, and extracted many subroutines as reusable functions. Recently, I introduced Git and SourceTree for version control. At the moment, because my co-workers are much more reluctant about these issues, the collaboration practices (8a,b,c) have not been introduced. Actually, as the authors admitted, because all of these practices take some amount of time and effort to introduce, it may be generally hard to persuade your reluctant collaborators to comply them. I think I'm asking your opinions because I still suffer from many bugs despite all my effort on many of these practices. Bug fix may be, or should be, faster than before, but I couldn't really measure the improvement. Moreover, much of my time has been invested on defence, meaning that I haven't actually done much data analysis (offence) these days. Where is the point I should stop at in terms of productivity? I've already deployed: 1a,b,c, 2a, 3a,b,c, 4b,c, 5a,d, 6a,b, 7a,7b I'm about to have a go at: 5b,c Not yet: 2b,c, 4a, 7c, 8a,b,c (I could not really see the advantage of using GNU make (2c) for my purpose. Could anyone tell me how it helps my work with MATLAB?)

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • Books or Articles on Using NUnit to Test Entire Features

    - by INTPnerd
    Are there any books or articles that show you how to use NUnit to test entire features of a program? Is there a name for this type of testing? This is different from the typical use of NUnit for unit testing where you test individual classes. This is similar to acceptance testing except that it is written by the developer to discern that the program does what they interpreted as being what the customer wants the program to do. I don't need it to be readable by non-programmers or to produce a readable specification for non-programmers. The problem I am having is keeping this feature testing code maintainable. I need help in organizing my feature testing code. I also need help organizing the program code to be drivable in this way. I am having a hard time being able to issue commands to the program while still having good code design.

    Read the article

  • Do I have to create a static library to test my application?

    - by Christopher Gateley
    I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • Is it feasible and useful to auto-generate some code of unit tests?

    - by skiwi
    Earlier today I have come up with an idea, based upon a particular real use case, which I would want to have checked for feasability and usefulness. This question will feature a fair chunk of Java code, but can be applied to all languages running inside a VM, and maybe even outside. While there is real code, it uses nothing language-specific, so please read it mostly as pseudo code. The idea Make unit testing less cumbersome by adding in some ways to autogenerate code based on human interaction with the codebase. I understand this goes against the principle of TDD, but I don't think anyone ever proved that doing TDD is better over first creating code and then immediatly therafter the tests. This may even be adapted to be fit into TDD, but that is not my current goal. To show how it is intended to be used, I'll copy one of my classes here, for which I need to make unit tests. public class PutMonsterOnFieldAction implements PlayerAction { private final int handCardIndex; private final int fieldMonsterIndex; public PutMonsterOnFieldAction(final int handCardIndex, final int fieldMonsterIndex) { this.handCardIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(handCardIndex, "handCardIndex"); this.fieldMonsterIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(fieldMonsterIndex, "fieldCardIndex"); } @Override public boolean isActionAllowed(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player, "player"); Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity()) { return false; } if (fieldMonsterIndex >= field.getMonsterCapacity()) { return false; } if (field.hasMonster(fieldMonsterIndex)) { return false; } if (!(hand.get(handCardIndex) instanceof MonsterCard)) { return false; } return true; } @Override public void performAction(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player); if (!isActionAllowed(player)) { throw new PlayerActionNotAllowedException(); } Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); field.setMonster(fieldMonsterIndex, (MonsterCard)hand.play(handCardIndex)); } } We can observe the need for the following tests: Constructor test with valid input Constructor test with invalid inputs isActionAllowed test with valid input isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs performAction test with valid input performAction test with invalid inputs My idea mainly focuses on the isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs. Writing these tests is not fun, you need to ensure a number of conditions and you check whether it really returns false, this can be extended to performAction, where an exception needs to be thrown in that case. The goal of my idea is to generate those tests, by indicating (through GUI of IDE hopefully) that you want to generate tests based on a specific branch. The implementation by example User clicks on "Generate code for branch if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity())". Now the tool needs to find a case where that holds. (I haven't added the relevant code as that may clutter the post ultimately) To invalidate the branch, the tool needs to find a handCardIndex and hand.getCapacity() such that the condition >= holds. It needs to construct a Player with a Hand that has a capacity of at least 1. It notices that the capacity private int of Hand needs to be at least 1. It searches for ways to set it to 1. Fortunately it finds a constructor that takes the capacity as an argument. It uses 1 for this. Some more work needs to be done to succesfully construct a Player instance, involving the creation of objects that have constraints that can be seen by inspecting the source code. It has found the hand with the least capacity possible and is able to construct it. Now to invalidate the test it will need to set handCardIndex = 1. It constructs the test and asserts it to be false (the returned value of the branch) What does the tool need to work? In order to function properly, it will need the ability to scan through all source code (including JDK code) to figure out all constraints. Optionally this could be done through the javadoc, but that is not always used to indicate all constraints. It could also do some trial and error, but it pretty much stops if you cannot attach source code to compiled classes. Then it needs some basic knowledge of what the primitive types are, including arrays. And it needs to be able to construct some form of "modification trees". The tool knows that it needs to change a certain variable to a different value in order to get the correct testcase. Hence it will need to list all possible ways to change it, without using reflection obviously. What this tool will not replace is the need to create tailored unit tests that tests all kinds of conditions when a certain method actually works. It is purely to be used to test methods when they invalidate constraints. My questions: Is creating such a tool feasible? Would it ever work, or are there some obvious problems? Would such a tool be useful? Is it even useful to automatically generate these testcases at all? Could it be extended to do even more useful things? Does, by chance, such a project already exist and would I be reinventing the wheel? If not proven useful, but still possible to make such thing, I will still consider it for fun. If it's considered useful, then I might make an open source project for it depending on the time. For people searching more background information about the used Player and Hand classes in my example, please refer to this repository. At the time of writing the PutMonsterOnFieldAction has not been uploaded to the repo yet, but this will be done once I'm done with the unit tests.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155  | Next Page >